briankistler

I saw this movie when it came out in '72. I was just looking to see if I could find it on DVD or video, but did not see that it was available. Eve Arden was incredible. At this point of her career she was in her early 60s (she was born in 1908; not in 1912 like some biographies say). She had the starring role in this movie, and she carried it off so well. As is always the case, with her movies and guest spots on TV, she was so charming and classy; also very funny. And for a woman 63 or 64 years of age, she seemed to have a boundless amount of energy----looked to me like someone who had no plans on slowly down, anytime soon.

And, in my opinion anyway, Eve always looked so much younger than her chronological age. I am reminded that, in the late 60s, she was playing the role of a mother-in-law, who was supposed to be in her 40s, when she was already right around 60 ("The Mothers-In-Law"). Also, in the class movie, "Grease", she was about 70, when she played the principal. She looked more like her early to mid 50s in that role.

In "A Very Missing Person", she played a woman who had been an English teacher. I wonder if her popular series, "Our Miss Brooks" (in which she also played a teacher) had something to do with why the producers picked her for this role (one could say the same thing about "Grease", since she was also in "Education" there).

I would have to disagree that "Grease" was her swan song, like one of the other reviewers of this movie pointed out. If you look at her IMDb credit list, she continued to make films, and do guest spots, well into the 80s (and not just Grease II). The long illness and death of her husband, in the 80s, no doubt slowed her down (and not just her own later health problems).

I remember really enjoying this movie. I have not seen it since 1972, so I don't recall everything about it. But I would have to agree with the reviewer who said that Eve would have made a great Jessica Fletcher on "Murder She Wrote". May Eve rest in peace. The 16 years, since her death, are 16 years WAY TOO LONG. How I wish she were still with us, and as healthy as her character in "A Very Missing Person".

One of the commentators mentioned that this was a Saturday morning cartoon. Wrong......it was aired during prime time, just like the original 1960 Flintstones series. The show was clearly aimed at an adult audience; not just because of the time slot; I remember that one of the show's sponsors was Haynes panty hose. I cannot agree that this show was a parody of All in the Family, as this same commentator mentioned; at least not in the sense that the father figure was a parody of Archie Bunker. The father in this show was not at all bigoted, as was Archie Bunker (and he was also a much more educated man).

I do remember seeing a very humorous old lady, in at least one episode, who was paranoid, thinking that there was "a communist under every bed". My mother commented to me, at the time, that she thought that this character was a take-off from the old lady in the 1971 movie "Cold Turkey" (about the town that gave up smoking for a whole month), and I believe that she was correct. "Cold Turkey" came out a year before "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home" debuted.

It's really a shame that this series did not make more than one season's worth of episodes (I believe it ran for two years, but the second year the shows were just repeats). I thought that it was a great show. When it debuted in '72, it had been 6 years since "The Flintstones" prime time show had ended. I missed seeing adult cartoons on TV. After "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home" ended, adult TV animation hit a dry spell for the next 15+ years, until The Simpsons began.

Brian

The first time that I logged on to this site, to read the reviews of IMDb users, I was pretty disappointed at how harsh and dismissive a lot of the comments were. Many of them seemed to parrot the remarks of a lot of the professional critics (I frequently disagree with them). I found it interesting that, a month or so later, there were at least just as many glowing and positive remarks. I was delighted to read a lot of these latest commentaries, because I find myself in agreement with them.

I saw the film version of the Phantom the night of Christmas Eve 2004. What a treat this was! I had seen the stage version, for the first time in my life, pretty close to one year earlier, when I was in Madrid, Spain. I had never even heard the music before December 2003. I felt that the movie was about at about 95% to being just as good as the play.

It was a very, VERY POWERFUL, magical and cosmic night, when I saw the Phantom performed on a European stage. It sent shivers down my spine, when the chandelier was raised to the top of the stage, at the beginning of the play, accompanied by that overpowering, pulsating and beautiful music. I was especially overwhelmed by the steady, heavy beat of the drums that accented that music so nicely. The movie had the exact same effect on me. Both times I found myself reduced to tears.

It was also very powerful, in both the play and the movie, when we hear the Phantom sing for the very first time, while he is back stage; especially the way his voice LOUDLY ECHOES in a HAUNTINGLY BEAUTIFUL WAY(which instills both horror and charm). In a way this special effect sort of reminds me of the same feeling that one gets when hearing a harpsichord play (a kind of Victorian or Gothic feel). Then, shortly after that, we see him for the very first time, in the flesh, with the leading lady. Talk about a dramatic entrance! (By this time the story has already been going on for quite some time; thank goodness there is still plenty of quality time left, with the delightful and terrifying phantom).

Once the Phantom is no longer singing in an echoing voice, his voice is awesomely BEAUTIFUL. Again, I felt this way with both the play and the movie. His beautiful voice is a perfect metaphor for the fact that the Phantom was neither black nor white.....neither a total villain, nor totally sympathetic(though I did find myself rooting for him----even crying for him).

For me, the only thing which prevents the movie from being 100% on the money with the play, was that some of the climactic action transpired a little more slowly, than on stage. This took away, a little, from the dramatic impact (but not terribly so).

I admit to being a little bit biased. I had not been to Spain for 23 years, and had always wanted to go back (I was an exchange student there in 1981). I had endured a 14-15 hour whirlwind trip, in getting over to Spain (between flights and layovers). And after all that, that very same evening, despite my jet lag and a 7-hour time difference, I was seated in the Lope de Vega Theater, enjoying the Phantom. It all felt so magical; especially after a 23-year hiatus from that country. So I know that when I saw the movie, last Christmas, in a way it was kind of like revisiting Spain all over again!